Yet another Tory leadership contest!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clarke is OUT

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Word is that third place was tied...

Not long now

The rumour mill was wrong. Again.

DAVIS: 62
CAMERON: 56
FOX: 42
CLARKE: 38

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Davis getting fewer votes than he had declared supporters spells the end of him I feel.

Very probably; good chance of Cameron v Fox (good showings by both) runoff.
Could get very, very nasty...

Just spotted something "interesting"... Davis polled 4 votes less than his declared list. Clarke was 4 votes away from not going out.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A rumour has gone round that Davis will concede to Cameron if Cameron wins by a mile and Davis is second.
Everyone is denying it, but it could do a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge amount of damage to Davis. He may well be toast. Burnt toast.

No prizes for guessing which camp spread that one around, ey? *cough* Fox *cough*

Voting begins in about two hours. I assume that the results will be declared around the same time as last time. Predictions anyone?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I see you remember the rebirth of the Magic Circle last year

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Sun has a poll:

Brown (Lab) 39% Cameron (Con) 36% Kennedy (LD) 18% Others 7%

Brown (Lab) 40% Davis (Con) 33% Kennedy (LD) 19% Others 8%

Dave

Both Labour and the Tories gain in the first, which is interesting. Very interesting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Good to see the 'Lib Dumbs' below 20%.

Right now polling numbers don't mean much (and I still think the pollsters need to adjust their methodology as far as social grade goes; they got very lucky last election as the overestimate of Labour's AB support and the underestimate of Labour's C2/D/E support more-or-less cancelled each other out. They won't be so lucky next time) but yes, I agree with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At least you know where you are with us

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clearly Cameron has a lot of appeal for the crucial drunks vote

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What was amazing IMO, was that after a few weeks of pretty tough coverage and with few people even knowing who he was other than a Tory, and perhaps what he looks like and the fact he’s “posh”… Cameron’s beating Brown amongst “swing voters” who’ve been polled by a clear margin, and remember Brown is very much a familiar “know quantity”, this is very good for Cameron – very good indeed.

The ICM poll for the Guardian had the numbers…

Cameron (Conservative) – 43%
Brown (Labour) – 38%

"Swing voters" being defined as voters who would consider voting Tory. Doesn't mean much; Labour are still leading in the main poll (not that means much either. See a previous post) and swing voters haven't decided an election since... 1970 I think.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sample sizes far too small to draw any conclusions. I've had a look at the regional breakdowns of some polls done in the election; the numbers were just screwy (LibDems leading in the Midlands in more than one poll for example).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Early days yet. Cameron is still an unknown, Labour haven't had a go at his image yet and all that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IIRC they need a swing of about 9pts (might be a bit less but you get the idea) to win an overall majority of 1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That comparision is made of just about every new kid on the block in every country around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose you could make a case for '64 (Wilson swinging several key marginals in Liverpool) but other than that... no. Things just don't work like that here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When he actually comes up with some policies, maybe

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If that Mori Poll was as acurate as its general election eve of poll, poll then it'd be somthing like...

Brown (Lab) 36% Cameron (Con) 36% Kennedy (LD) 17% Others 8%

This sort of thinking reminds me of the way in the election that the Tories claimed polls showing Labour up by (say) 4pts "actually" showed (say) a Tory lead of 2pts due to overestimation of Labour's lead in 2001 etc.
An old trick that never worked when it was new.

As an aside the 4pt swing from the LibDems to the Tories shown in that poll would result in the Tories gaining 13 seats from the LibDems. Quite a lot bearing in mind how few (relatively speaking) LibDem seats there are.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe Labour's Soviet style coronation of Brown as heir apparent

The only leadership election recently that even remotely resembled the way they did things in the U.S.S.R resulted in the M.P for a coastal Kent seat becoming leader of a certainly political party. But that's "different" obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the David Cameron that was an advisor to Lamont around the time of Black Wednesday?

Note that I don't like that sort of campaigning and would rather that fact doesn't get used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that Labour's next campaign will be based around that sort of thing. Indications are that we'll see something based around "values" will get used. Even so it's four years away at least.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which isn't likely

[Filuwaúrdjan]

David Cameron was an adviser to Lamont yes, but was more of an observer than a player in the final decision making if you look at the briefing he had. Secondly, Gordon Brown himself at that time was a strong ERM supporter too, to the extent of supporting the Conservative line in calling for its adoption. So he cant possibly use that charge against Cameron without it blowing back in his face.

Maybe so, but accuracy or fairness have nothing to do with negative ads. I'm tempted to blame Churchill's "gestapo" speech in 1945 but it had been going on for donkey's years (the Red Scare election in 1924 is obviously the best example).
I don't think that negative ads are an especially good idea in the long run as they lower turnout and in the short term I'm not sure either. But ever since Naaaaaaaaaasti and Naaaaaaaaaaaasti turned up in the late '70's the dominant line of thought has been that it's better to cynically lower turnout that come out with some real policies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Has slow down though,

Growth has been slower, yes. Employment statistics are still pretty good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taxes aren't high at the moment. People feeling the pinch of them probably weren't likely to vote Labour anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A slow down has already happend. Guessing what the economic conditions will be like in 4 years time is hard; it's hard enough to predict four months into the future.
Trends are all over the place right now. We're in a period of "lies, damn lies and statistics" at the moment, sad to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think its fair to say that in the forty or so “super marginals” now held by Labour all with majorities below 1-2,000, swing voters pretty much kept Labour in.

Absolutely not. Good GOTV work by the Unions and some personal votes (especially in Stroud, South Dorset and Sittingbourne & Sheppey) did that... from what I saw swing voters largely swung against Labour.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No such thing in the U.K

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which in real life we certainly didn't. There was a huge collapse in Labour support from AB types; completely unheralded by the polls but very noticable from the 2004 Euro and Local elections.
That .pdf afleitch linked to has a little table of the top 10 constituencies for AB types; huge Labour falls in all of them (exception being Richmond [Surrey] were Labour is a fringe party anyway)... another example is just one borough in London (Enfield). Labour unexpectedly loses Southgate (full of AB types), and hangs onto "more marginal" North (evenly split between blue collar and white collar voters).
I can provide plenty more examples (including county council results if you want to go down to that level of detail) if you want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope; we just won the turnout war     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aaaah... good. I was gettin' worried about you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...this is because Davis has no appeal anywhere  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

O/c if Labour's strategy is to play the class card more agressively in future (in combination with a return to the old [pre-'80's] trick of stressing morals) that wouldn't be a problem

You must be logged in to read this quote.

9pts is a direct swing against Labour in every consituency. Crude but interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which was a freakishly large swing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. There's a distinct possibility of both Labour and the Tories increasing there vote in the next election. Wait and see though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe, but the same is true of the last election in Australia. And we all know how that turned out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By 1997 even Michael Foot could have beaten Major    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but not as large a role as is commonly assumed. The main thing is organisation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The remark was in jest
Seriously though, if he doesn't come up with something soon, Davis will be able to (unfairly) have him branded an airhead. But so far Davis has been pretty inept and that line of attack probably won't occur to him

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labour didn't need any policy shifts for '97 either (except for one; crime). "New Labour" was basically a marketing thing. I've never been a fan. Didn't like "Old" Labour" (ie; early '80's Labour) either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually that would have put even the Soviet Union to shame.

Haha!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Things had been getting pretty quiet until Davis came out with his little plan (other than the pair of them getting booed at the national television awards).
Anyone got any idea how it'll play?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Saw a recording of the CH4 news from today, Cameron was surrounded by lots Party workers and activists in some sea side iddle (life’s departure lounge for Powelites I guess), Davis was wondering rather hopelessly around some oak panelled business centre with a small group (and I mean small!) of people holding a giant cheque... its still looking very bad for Davis.

If Cameron is cutting into the key "dying Powellite" faction, Davis is surely doomed

And so could be around half of the LibDem parliamentary party if Cameron lives up to his billing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can still remember when he lost his seat in '97!
As a serious point I *could* understand his complaint if Davis hadn't done exactly the same thing when he were front runner (IMO he was even worse for it)...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Didn’t Conway lose to Paul Marsden of all people back in 97?

Yes!

Even better; Marsden vaulted from third in '92 to first in '97

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you'll find that he finds it impossible to do that. Dangerous guy Conway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did anyone see the debate they had last night? Didn't see it meself, but I'm told that Davis did well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Apparently voting as begun. Month to the result now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4408360.stm

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In The Times today, there is a Populus poll of Conservative voters, in which Davis has taken a lead over Cameron

Among Tory voters, Davis is on 50% and Cameron is on 37% (with 13% "don't knows")

However, by 45% to 11%, they think Cameron is more likely to win a general election

*tries to make sense of those figures*

*fails*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In otherwords a re-run of '05 but with the LibDems getting squeezed (and bearing in mind how marginal a lot of their constituencies are, losing a lot of seats).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In otherwords, a landslide (and on those figures Simon Hughes would lose Bermondsey )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interestingly enough, that's more-or-less in line with what the local by-elections are pointing too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Looks at the LibDem figure with barely disguised glee*

Is the Baxter calculator still online?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...and the 19 surviving Liberal seats in ICM Brown v Cameron would be: St Ives, Yeovil, Northavon, Lewes, Kingston & Surbiton, Twickenham, North Norfolk, Montgomery, Hazel Grove, Sheffield Hallam, Harrogate & Knaresborough, Berwick upon Tweed, Edinburgh West, North East Fife, Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine, Gordon, Ross-Skye & Lochaber, Caithness-Sutherland & Easter Ross... and Orkney & Shetland.

Simon Hughes, Evan Harris, Lynee Featherbrain and John Hemming ALL LOSE!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It won't be quite that bad after the Boundary Reviews (redistricting) are taken into account, but the electoral system will still have an inbuilt Labour bias I expect.

The inbuilt bias (o/c it should be noted that this is mainly due to low turnout in Labour areas not any inbuilt bias in the drawing of the constituencies. Back in the '50's when Labour turnout was higher than Tory turnout the situation was reversed) seems likely to reduce in terms of seats... but at the same time a lot of Labour marginals become less marginal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and you can't really compare raw totals in elections before 1974 with elections after 1974; before then it was the norm to have just two candidates run in each constituency (even in the '20's and '30's this happend a lot) or for the Liberal candidate to be little more than an unfunded write-in.
Oh and I'd dispute that the National Government was similer to the Grand Coalition in Germany; most of Labour stayed out [insert standard issue rant about MacDonald and then standard issue gloating about Seaham 1935 here] after all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Apparently the Torygraph is saying that Cameron has a huuuuuuuuge lead in votes already cast. Not sure how they know this (exit poll?) though.
I don't buy the Torygraph and I've not looked at their website since they took off those excellent constituency profiles for the 2001 election, so someone else will have to find all that out.
Political Betting will probably have something.